I've read commentaries that say this dialogue refutes the Theory of Forms but I never got that interpretation myself. I'm glad you touched upon how a misinterpretation of the Theory results in philosophical issues. Socrates is young in this dialogue because he hasn't yet fully figured out the essence of the theory himself, but the first glimmers of it are being put together. I also interpret the fact that the arguments against Socrates are so tongue-twisty as a way to trivialize them, a sort of "Look at the hairs my detractors need to split" kind of thing.
Even if the Ideal realm is untrue and even if we cannot know it if it is true, isn’t it worthwhile having a greater vision? To hold in the mind a better day or have in the heart a greater aspiration is to be human and perhaps something more. The trick is to know whether the ideals you carry are TRULY good and TRULY greater. TRUTH should be the guide, the North Star. I suddenly sound like a hallmark card-still though it is our thoughts and ideals that keep us going for better or worse. To just say nothing exists, that nothing is true and have no ideals is great for a dog, but it would be a dog’s life not a human one and certainly not approaching greatness or divinity or even satisfaction. These little dives into Plato are thought provoking. Cheers!
You know, this idea that someone memorized this conversation makes me think to the Homeric performers who memorized epic poetry. Is Plato saying that these discussions between the philosophers are just as worthy of being remembered as the poetry of Homer? Something that crossed my mind.
Well. I'm about 14 pages into this dialogue, and I have to admit it makes me long for the circular arguments of the teenagers of the Euthydemus. Hard to come off of the gorgeous and lofty chapters of the Republic to this, but I appreciate that Plato is essentially trying to juxtaposition an earlier philosopher to Socrates and the theories of Oneness, forms, and ideas. I think I will listen to your videos first, perhaps complete the dialogue itself afterwards. What I can tell you from what I've read so far is that the Oneness philosophy being fleshed out here through Parmenides had an effect on many Christian theologians and mystics, including Swedenborg, who argued vehemently that the doctrine of the Trinity was contrary to the nature of God and that God was a "Oneness" - hence the term Oneness theology, harkening back to the original Judaic concept of God. Just a little trivia there from the point of view of a Swedenborgian. Be blessed.
Being British.myself, I have no problem at all with Thomas Taylor, quite, but not totally quite, the opposite. Deep, meaningful, inciteful, thorough, genuine.
Great is used by Plato as argument with the meaning of big in the dialogue. It's not by chance that in the beginning of the hypothesis in which the one is not, Plato puts words in the mouth of the character of the old Parmenides, which are the core argument in the poem of Nature, where the historical Parmenides declares that greatness or smallness doesn't pertain to being. For a correct interpretation of the dialogue, one has to take in account Plato's principle of the diade. And I'll tell you something that doesn't appear in any of Plato's dialogues. Despite all the mystery that surrounds the antithesis between being and not being, there is an unique way of thinking, and it's the one that admits some form of differentiation. Think of ungenerated quantities if you want to overcome the metaphysical monism. It's absurd to deny the one, as does Plato in the dialogue, because in that case the argument about the unproductivity of nothingness upon which the historical Parmenides had imposed his investigations on Nature, give rise to a theory of predication understandable only by the immortals; if you are fully aware what It means to be alive, as was supposedly Descartes himself.
I've read commentaries that say this dialogue refutes the Theory of Forms but I never got that interpretation myself. I'm glad you touched upon how a misinterpretation of the Theory results in philosophical issues. Socrates is young in this dialogue because he hasn't yet fully figured out the essence of the theory himself, but the first glimmers of it are being put together. I also interpret the fact that the arguments against Socrates are so tongue-twisty as a way to trivialize them, a sort of "Look at the hairs my detractors need to split" kind of thing.
Even if the Ideal realm is untrue and even if we cannot know it if it is true, isn’t it worthwhile having a greater vision? To hold in the mind a better day or have in the heart a greater aspiration is to be human and perhaps something more.
The trick is to know whether the ideals you carry are TRULY good and TRULY greater. TRUTH should be the guide, the North Star.
I suddenly sound like a hallmark card-still though it is our thoughts and ideals that keep us going for better or worse. To just say nothing exists, that nothing is true and have no ideals is great for a dog, but it would be a dog’s life not a human one and certainly not approaching greatness or divinity or even satisfaction.
These little dives into Plato are thought provoking. Cheers!
You know, this idea that someone memorized this conversation makes me think to the Homeric performers who memorized epic poetry. Is Plato saying that these discussions between the philosophers are just as worthy of being remembered as the poetry of Homer? Something that crossed my mind.
Well. I'm about 14 pages into this dialogue, and I have to admit it makes me long for the circular arguments of the teenagers of the Euthydemus. Hard to come off of the gorgeous and lofty chapters of the Republic to this, but I appreciate that Plato is essentially trying to juxtaposition an earlier philosopher to Socrates and the theories of Oneness, forms, and ideas. I think I will listen to your videos first, perhaps complete the dialogue itself afterwards. What I can tell you from what I've read so far is that the Oneness philosophy being fleshed out here through Parmenides had an effect on many Christian theologians and mystics, including Swedenborg, who argued vehemently that the doctrine of the Trinity was contrary to the nature of God and that God was a "Oneness" - hence the term Oneness theology, harkening back to the original Judaic concept of God. Just a little trivia there from the point of view of a Swedenborgian.
Be blessed.
Being British.myself, I have no problem at all with Thomas Taylor, quite, but not totally quite, the opposite. Deep, meaningful, inciteful, thorough, genuine.
Great is used by Plato as argument with the meaning of big in the dialogue. It's not by chance that in the beginning of the hypothesis in which the one is not, Plato puts words in the mouth of the character of the old Parmenides, which are the core argument in the poem of Nature, where the historical Parmenides declares that greatness or smallness doesn't pertain to being. For a correct interpretation of the dialogue, one has to take in account Plato's principle of the diade.
And I'll tell you something that doesn't appear in any of Plato's dialogues. Despite all the mystery that surrounds the antithesis between being and not being, there is an unique way of thinking, and it's the one that admits some form of differentiation. Think of ungenerated quantities if you want to overcome the metaphysical monism.
It's absurd to deny the one, as does Plato in the dialogue, because in that case the argument about the unproductivity of nothingness upon which the historical Parmenides had imposed his investigations on Nature, give rise to a theory of predication understandable only by the immortals; if you are fully aware what It means to be alive, as was supposedly Descartes himself.